Morning Wire - Congressional Funding Fight & Harrington V. Purdue Pharma | 12.5.23

Episode Date: December 5, 2023

The White House calls on Congress to continue funding Ukraine, the Supreme Court hears opening arguments in Purdue Pharma’s massive opioid settlement case, and a DC judge rules against former President Trump in his bid to delay the election interference case in Washington. Get the facts first with Morning Wire. Bambee: Get access to your own dedicated HR Manager at http://www.bambee.com. Make sure to type in Morning Wire under podcast when you sign up! Genucel: Limited Time Holiday Sale! https://genucel.com/WIRE Black Rifle Coffee: Get 10% off your Coffee Club subscription!BlackRifleCoffee.com promo code ‘WIRE’ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The White House is calling on Congress to continue funding Ukraine, warning of grave repercussions on the battlefield if the aid is cut off. Reform asylum, reform parole. I will not vote for any aid until we secure our own border. Can Democrats and Republicans reach an agreement? I'm Georgia Howe with Daily Wire editor-in-chief John Bickley. It's Tuesday, December 5th, and this is Morning Wire. Purdue Farma's massive opioid settlement reaches the Supreme Court.

court, and billions are on the line. The one plaintiff that jumps the line, hits the jackpot first, wipes it out for everyone else. That's about as simple as I can say it. And a D.C. judge rules against former President Trump in his bid to delay the election interference case in Washington. Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to know. The White House sent an urgent letter to Congress on Monday pleading for more funding for Ukraine and warning of dire consequences on the battlefield if support dries up.

Here with more on the funding battle and how both parties are responding is Daily Wire Senior Editor, Cabot Phillips. So Cabot, the Biden administration is looking to pressure Congress into more Ukraine funding. What do we know so far? Yeah, on Monday, the White House sent a letter to Congress, essentially begging them for more money for Ukraine's war effort against Russia. Now, we've seen public comments from the White House calling on Congress to keep the money coming, but this was perhaps their most direct plea to date. The letter calls for billions more in funding

and claims that, quote, without congressional action, by the end of the year, we will run out of resources for Ukraine. It goes on to say, quote, there's no magical pot of funding available to meet this moment. We are out of money and nearly out of time. Went on to warn the Ukrainian military will be, quote, kneecapped without further American funding. And it's worth noting the White House is not just focused on funding for military support. They're also warning that without American aid, the Ukrainian economy itself will collapse. As they put it, quote, if Ukraine's economy collapses, they will not be able to keep fighting full stop. So backing up a bit, at this point, how much aid has been sent to Ukraine? Yeah, to date, Congress has allocated around $11 billion in assistance. That includes $67 billion

in military funding, $27 billion for economic and civil assistance, and another $10 billion for humanitarian aid. That is equivalent to about 13% of our annual defense budget, and it's larger than the GDPs of about two-thirds of the countries on Earth. So a lot of money here, all told the U.S. has supplied more funding for Ukraine than the entire EU combined and nearly more than every other country on Earth combined. But according to the White House, about 99% of that funding has already been used up. And it's worth noting we have seen a shifting view among voters as this war has dragged on. That sentiment has also grown among lawmakers, many of whom now appear unwilling to sign off on more funding.

Now, walk us through the current funding debate that's going on in Washington. Yeah, so one of the main sticking points right now is the fact that President Biden is proposing a package that not only includes $60 billion for Ukraine, but tens of billions more for Taiwan, Israel, and elsewhere. Many Republican lawmakers say that they'll only support more money for Ukraine if it's coupled with immigration reform. They want to see federal dollars going towards our southern border. The main argument from Republicans is essentially that America cannot afford to spend hundreds of billions of dollars for Eastern Europe. at a time when our own country is trillions in debt and dealing with a crisis of illegal immigration. They also claim that despite all of our financial support, Ukraine is no closer to victory now than they were last year and that funding cannot go on forever if there's not a realistic shot of victory.

To that point, here's White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on Monday. A vote against supplemental funding for Ukraine will hurt Ukraine and help Russia. It will hurt democracy and help dictators. and we think that that is not the right lesson of history and that every member Democrat and Republicans should vote to support this. So what comes next? Well, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer,

who is in favor of more Ukraine funding, says he'll hold a vote on President Biden's proposal this week. But Democrats say that it's all but dead as things currently stand. As Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy put it, Republicans want to, quote, essentially close the border and eliminate asylum, which he said were non-starters for Democrats. But there is a bit more optimism from Senate Republicans who say they're willing to come to the table and do believe that Democrats could ultimately offer enough concessions on the border to secure passage in the Senate. But again, even if that happens, which is by no means a given, the measure would still have to pass the Republican-held House, which would be a tall order.

Right. We'll just have to wait and see if that goes through. Cabot, thanks for reporting. Any time. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard oral arguments in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, a consequential case. case, focusing on a bankruptcy deal with the pharmaceutical company behind OxyContin, a drug known for kick-starting the opioid epidemic. Here to discuss is Daily Wire reporter Amanda Prestoge-Ochamo. So Amanda, as we've covered here before, we know Purdue Pharma brought OxyContin to the market and sold it under false claims that it was non-addictive. This case, Harrington v. Purdue

Pharma is specifically dealing with the pharmaceutical company's bankruptcy agreement, correct? That's right. So what exactly is the Supreme Court being asked to weigh in on? So that bankruptcy agreement that you mentioned Georgia, that totals around $6 billion, and that money would go toward efforts to fight the opioid crisis, and it includes $750 million to compensate victims and their families. But notably, it shields the Sackler family, who are the owners of Purdue, from victims and their family's civil claims.

In other words, after this payout, they can't be found personally liable. Early on, the bankruptcy agreement was challenged, but eventually upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Now the Biden administration is asking the High Court to overturn that decision, arguing that the agreement is not legal, largely because some of the victims who did not consent to this agreement, they're now banned from suing the Sackler family. So what were the main arguments from each side and how did the justices react to them? Well, I mean, I will say there certainly wasn't much sympathy for the Sackler family or Purdue as expected, but it did seem like nearly all the justices were uncomfortable with moving to nullify this agreement in any way, since tens of thousands of the victims and their families wrote to the court in support of the deal. Notably, 97% of the victims who responded said they were in favor of this bankruptcy agreements,

and they felt it was the only way they would get some sort of compensation and closure. Here's a moment from Monday between Justice Kavanaugh and Deputy Solicitor General Curtis Gannon discussing that issue. You're implying or even saying, oh, if you just reject this plan, there's going to be more money available down the road from the Sacklers. And I don't think you're accounting for the uncertainty of liability, first of all, and the uncertainty of recovery. And so the point of this provision, as it's been applied for 30 years, is to take into account those uncertainties in thinking about whether this is a appropriate settlement. U.S. trustee William Harrington is arguing that this bankruptcy deal is, and this is a quote, a roadmap for corporations and wealthy individuals to misuse the bankruptcy system

to avoid mass tort liability. And he also added that it erodes public confidence in the bankruptcy system. The court also heard from Prateekh shot. He's a lawyer for some of the victims. He argue that without the bankruptcy deal, virtually every victim will end up with zero dollars. There are about $40 trillion in estimated claims. As soon as one plaintiff is successful, that wipes out the recovery for every other victim. That is why 97% of the victims agreed to this non-consensual release. They have no love loss for the Sacklers. So the concern here is that this is sort of a sweetheart deal for the Sacklers, but a lot of the victims don't want to throw it away because they think it's the best they're going to get. That's exactly right. So 3% of the victims

did not agree to the deal. Those in disagreements feel the Sackler family are directly liable for their family losses or their personal suffering and frankly want to see them pay and they want their day in court. If the deal holds, the Sackler family will walk away free and clear with the majority of their multi-billion dollar fortune. Now, when can we expect a decision? The court should have one by June. All right, well, we will stay on it. Amanda, thanks for reporting.

You're welcome. In a significant legal setback, a federal judge in D.C. recently ruled against former President Trump, saying he was not immune from prosecution in his election interference case in Washington. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkin and Obama appointee also rejected Trump's arguments that his First Amendment rights were being violated.

joining us to discuss the ruling and its implications as former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy. Andy, thanks for joining us. Yeah, sure. So late Friday, a judge ruled against Trump's claim of presidential immunity in his 2020 election interference case. Where does that leave his defense? Well, it's the most important issue that he raises because his objective is delay. There are some issues which go to whether it's proper to put a person on trial in the first place, that the law allows pre-trial appeals for.

And the claim that was ruled on Friday by Judge Tanya Chutkin was such a claim. Trump was advancing an immunity claim saying that because the activities that are the focus of his election interference trial were, as he argues within the ambit of his presidential responsibilities. He has immunity from prosecution for those. Judge Chutkin rejected that claim. I think it was to be expected that she would. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the question of whether a former president has immunity from prosecution, criminal prosecution, for official actions in connection with the presidency. But it did rule in a case called Nixon v. Fitzgerald. I think it was back in the early 80s, that a president does have immunity from civil suit for his official actions.

But that was a very deeply divided case. And the court strongly suggested that had the issue been criminal liability rather than civil liability, the court would have come out differently. So I think Judge Chutkin applied that reasoning to this case, which does raise the question of criminal liability. and she said he does not have immunity from prosecution. Judge Chutkin also rejected Trump's claim that the indictment violates his First Amendment rights to free speech, which he used to question the validity of the election. Did you think that was a valid ruling?

Yeah, I thought so, and I happened to have some familiarity with this issue, and the doctrine of law that is triggered by this is the idea that you are allowed as a prosecutor to use speech as proof of crimes. As far as the law is concerned, that doesn't criminalize the speech itself because you're not saying that the words that were used, the utterance of them is a crime. You're using the words that were uttered as evidence of other crimes. In this case, Trump is charged with fraud, obstruction, and a civil rights violation. And what Judge Chuckin ruled was that the government is not saying that his act of speaking, for example, on the ellipse, was itself a crime. but it is evidence of the crimes that are charged in the case.

So how does this ruling, Chutkin's ruling, impact 2024? What should we expect in the coming months? Yeah, so the reason that the immunity issue in the D.C. Election interference case is so important is Trump's strategy is delay. What he's trying to do is get an issue that he can, even if he loses with Judge Chukkin, And that gives him a chance to get up to the court of appeals where she could lose control over the schedule. But I think we can say with some confidence that Trump, at a minimum, is going to be spending two to three months between March and May in a courtroom every single day in a felony trial. Well, it's going to be a wild ride.

I'm afraid so. Andy, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate your time as always. Thanks a lot. That was former federal prosecutor, Andy McCarthy. Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back later this afternoon with more news you need to know.